[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;171372]Has anyone ever tried recovering a enclosed lifeboat in a two foot chop and light winds where the davits are 90 feet from the water?[/QUOTE]
That made me smile … I remember the first trip we made to Valdez with new enclosed lifeboats. We were anchored off Hinchinbrook and took the opportunity to practice a launch and recovery in exactly those conditions … launch went OK, a bit shaky but no real problems. Recovery on the other hand took most of the rest of the day when the wind increased a bit. We finally had to have one of the escort tugs provide a lee or we wouldn’t have ever got it back. The cadet damn near died of seasickness before it was all over.
[QUOTE=Steamer;171373]That made me smile … I remember the first trip we made to Valdez with new enclosed lifeboats. We were anchored off Hinchinbrook and took the opportunity to practice a launch and recovery in exactly those conditions … launch went OK, a bit shaky but no real problems. Recovery on the other hand took most of the rest of the day when the wind increased a bit. We finally had to have one of the escort tugs provide a lee or we wouldn’t have ever got it back. The cadet damn near died of seasickness before it was all over.[/QUOTE]
I saw that post of yours a while back. Came across it via google. It was a good post but as a deckie I thought I read a little schadenfreude between the lines.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;171374]I saw that post of yours a while back. Came across it via google. It was a good post but as a deckie I thought I read a little schadenfreude between the lines.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean a little?
I had the offer to go for the ride but something told me it would be better to just hang around the bridge and watch. Except for the poor cadet, the only thing that got more laughs that trip was when we found a puffin sheltering in the cross passage one morning. We finally managed to herd it under the desk in the cargo control room and toss a jacket over it so we could let it go outside.
I would certainly say that the lifeboat as we know it is an anachronism intended to be used in an orderly evacuation from a ship in a fairly calm sea with a ship upright. This goes for any davit launched boat using wire falls as means to deploy.
I have never been a fan of the gravity launched freefall boat mainly from the fact to board them is difficult due to the boat being inclined downward at a severe angle. For any boat to be boarded quickly and orderly, it should be stowed horizontally. Further the stern carried freefall boat is stowed in a fashion to make it possibly unable to be launched with the ship at a fatal angle of inclination. This is what I believe a boat should be stowed in some fashion to allow it to lift off a foundering vessel at any angle. Difficult to design to be failure proof? Yes. Expensive to build and to fit? Of course, Potential to save a vessel’s crew in conditions which would prevent the use of any “traditional” lifeboat? ABSOLUTELY!
Spotted another, Ocean Pheonix, at the pier in Smith Cove, Seattle with all the other factory trawlers now that the cruise ships are gone. Keel laid in 1964, converted in 1989, at least she isn’t used in Alaska fisheries now.
[QUOTE=renoun;171412]at least she isn’t used in Alaska fisheries.[/QUOTE]
haha…that ship is a massive human loss of life waiting to happen. I was under the mistaken belief that the owners were looking to finally replace her with a smaller more economical ship to operate and I made a pitch to them for using the AKIRA CHOUEST but that went nowhere at all…
[QUOTE=renoun;171412]Spotted another, Ocean Pheonix, at the pier in Smith Cove, Seattle with all the other factory trawlers now that the cruise ships are gone. Keel laid in 1964, converted in 1989, at least she isn’t used in Alaska fisheries [I]now[/I].
[/QUOTE]
Not sure where the SS Cape Island is now, it was in your neighborhood, last I saw it was in Tacoma. It had open life boats when I was on it, probably still does.
[QUOTE=Tankerengr;171466]Depending on the size of the vessel and trade it is in, an open boat is just fine.[/QUOTE]
except by that measure EL FARO’s run and usual sea conditions it encountered on it made that all just fine but it negates the worst possible conditions which can occur which is exactly what we witnessed here
So by this rational no towing vessel should be allowed to go to sea. Manned barges should not be allowed because they would need lifeboats too. I agree that a ship the size of El Faro should have enclosed boats in this day and age but things have to be within reason and I think the point being made was that not every route or vessel can meet that. The sludge tankers in NY Harbor never go to sea but they are unlimited tonnage so should they have fully enclosed lifeboats? I don’t think so and I don’t think that’s unreasonable. You are taking his statement out of context and I’m sure you were aware of what he meant. It’s like comparing the regulations for a car against how safe a motorcycle is. Yes we should have helmet laws but they aren’t as good as four doors and two bumpers…
[QUOTE=tugsailor;171396]Does any school in the US provide free fall lifeboat training?
I hear that they don’t due to the relatively high risk of injury and liability concerns.[/QUOTE]
Here is from a drop at a Safety Training Center in Nova Scotia, Canada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGuLXLTWiCA
They do this every day of the week, year around. It is safe.
This is from a test drop of a new designed free fall lifeboat from 60 m. (183 ft.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly05OF6OAWc
It is intended for installation on an Offshore Platform with a free fall heigth of 43 m. (130 ft.) with 70 people on board.
Boats like this is available for sale to anybody willing to pay for it.
Somewhere earlier the question was raised whether free fall lifeboats could be mounted for side launching rather then over the stern.
Yes it is possible and has been done. Here is specs for an Offshore Vessel with two free fall lifeboats on either side: http://www.islandoffshore.com/fleet/fleet-overview/rlwi/island-wellserver
The advantage with side launching of free fall lifeboats are that they can be launched at heavy list to whichever side, but not unlimited.
They can also be launched if the vessel has large trim by bow or stern without problems with hooks releasing at different times.
Once the free fall boat hits water it is heading [B]away[/B] from the ship and burning oil on the water at a rate of knots, not waiting for hooks to auto release and not being beaten against the side while trying to get away from a capsizing ship.
In my opinion, there is no safer way to abandon a ship, rig or platform under any circumstances, or in any conditions.
Whether or not better lifeboats would have made a difference in a cat 4 hurricane? probably not; are free fall boats safer and a far better solution? Absolutely.
Case closed.
Bring on the Next topic, trolls. Or I could do it…
Since all the aviation experts are here, why don’t they have a parachute for all passengers on an airliner?
[QUOTE=ombugge;171488]Somewhere earlier the question was raised whether free fall lifeboats could be mounted for side launching rather then over the stern.
Yes it is possible and has been done. Here is specs for an Offshore Vessel with two free fall lifeboats on either side:
The advantage with side launching of free fall lifeboats are that they can be launched at heavy list to whichever side, but not unlimited. They can also be launched if the vessel has large trim by bow or stern without problems with hooks releasing at different times.
Once the free fall boat hits water it is heading [B]away[/B] from the ship and burning oil on the water at a rate of knots, not waiting for hooks to auto release and not being beaten against the side while trying to get away from a capsizing ship.
In my opinion, there is no safer way to abandon a ship, rig or platform under any circumstances, or in any conditions.[/QUOTE]
I think the IMO and FAA should put all of their weight behind perfecting transporter technology. What is safer than beaming out of any bad situation?
Show of hands who would have wanted to be in a top of the line enclosed lifeboat in 140 mph winds and 40-50 ft seas?
Yes this tragedy can be used to help further safety requirements for ships. The first and foremost safe thing you can do with a ship is not sail it toward a hurricane to start with.
but we all know the ugly mess we get when the transporter malfunctions…don’t we Mister Scott?
Show of hands who would have wanted to be in a top of the line enclosed lifeboat in 140 mph winds and 40-50 ft seas?
as master I would certainly be the last one in line but any ship’s crew MUST HAVE a refuge they can retreat to in the “worst possible scenario” not those conditions that are most likely but those the most unlikely no matter how incredible. Worst winds and seas, ship heeled on its side, the engineroom and superstructure burning all at the same moment. Yes, we cannot expect a shipowner to pay outrageous sums on overkill but there must be a standard they are held to higher above those ridiculous minimums that they receive at their request.
Yes this tragedy can be used to help further safety requirements for ships. The first and foremost safe thing you can do with a ship is not sail it toward a hurricane to start with.
I cannot agree more and use the metaphor that the best way to fight a fire is to not have one but they still happen and the ship and her crew must be ready to deal with them and if the fire cannot be extinguished, that the crew must have the best possible odds to be able to get away in the worst conditions they might encounter.
